The 2.7 binaries are available for testing:
You will also find the source tarballs there as well.
We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help
test 2.7 if you can. Please follow these instructions to test 2.7:
/To test llvm-gcc:/
1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects
directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre-
compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself.
2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note
that you need to reconfigure llvm with llvm-gcc in your path or with -- with-llvmgccdir
3) Run "make TEST=nightly report". Compare these results to a 2.6 llvm-test nightly report or send the results to the list. For supported targets, we'll try to examine the results, but its best if you can do the comparison yourself.
Attached are the nightly test results when run with llvm-gcc
(report.nightly.txt), and when run with clang (clang-report.nightly.txt).
Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3,
64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself,
and used the binaries for llvm-gcc.
1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs 2.6
compared to my results from Aug 31 2009, ignoring CBE failures:
new JIT failures:
2. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs clang 2.7
When comparing the 2.7 llvm-gcc and clang results I see these
differences (is llvm-gcc considered baseline for clang?):
ALL FAIL (pass in llvm-gcc):
JIT failures in clang, pass in llvm-gcc:
3. Some performance regressions GCC/LLC (2.6 -> 2.7), but keep in mind
that I wasn't using GCC 4.4.3 as comparison for llvm 2.6!
MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon 1.22 -> 1.14
MultiSource/Applications/lua/lua 0.91 -> 0.84
MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/Obsequi 0.93 -> 0.86
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk 1.01 -> 0.91
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 0.94 -> 0.75
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural 1.0 -> 0.9
MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm 1.06 -> 0.9
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/treeadd/treeadd 11.44 -> 9.89
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/tsp/tsp 1.14 -> 1.02
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/anagram/anagram 1.33 -> 1.23
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Dhrystone/dry 7.32 -> 5.16
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Dhrystone/fldry 8.02 -> 6.65
I'll have to write a script to compare the results, its boring and
inaccurate to do by hand.
Will go through the bugzilla tomorrow and see if I need to open new bugs
for this stuff.
/To test clang:/
1) Compile llvm and clang from source.
2) Run make check for llvm.
3) Run make -C tools/clang-2.6 test VERBOSE=1 (report any failures or
Surely you meant tools/clang-2.7
FYI I pulled the following revisions for ClamAV's llvm on top of 2.7:
I don't know if any of these qualify as regression fixes for 2.7, I'll
leave it up to you to decide if you want to put them into 2.7 or not.
report.nightly.txt (82.1 KB)
clang-report.nightly.txt (82.1 KB)